Disposed

R.Santhosh Kumar v. Smt.Mithra

Kerala HC14 Sept 2017Con.Case(C)/1541/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt of court case filed under Article 226, the Court found no deliberate contempt. Although a prior judgment directed expeditious removal of encroachers without a specific time frame, the Court noted that encroachers were not impleaded and proceedings require due process. Consequently, the contempt case was closed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case (CO C. No. 1541 of 2017) is closed.

R.Santhosh Kumar Vs Smt.Mithra — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/23RD BHADRA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 1541 of 2017 () IN WP(C).10028/2017 ----------------------------------------------------IN WP(C) 10028/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

R.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. RAJAGOPALA KURUP, AGED 50 YEARS, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶7

BY ADV. B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1. SMT.MITHRA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM - 6914 013.

¶9

2. SRI. SASI KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶10

3. SRI. SHARAFUDEEN,

¶11

FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 309.

¶12

4. SMT. ANU PRIYA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER-III, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DIVISION, THENMALA, THENMALA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 308.

¶13

5. SRI. S.L. SAJI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THENMALA, THENMALA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶14

6. SMT. SINI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KOLLAM- 691001.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R. DEEPA

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rvs.

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 1541 of 2017 () IN WP(C).10028/2017

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

ANNEXURE	A1 THE TRUE BY THE 4 SECTION 1 TO REMOVE	COPY TH R 5(2) THE	OF THE NOT ESPONDENT OF THE KE SHED NO.60	ICE DATED 09/12/2014 ISSUED AGAINST THE PERSONS UNDER RALA HIGHWAY PROTECTION ACT AND 61.
ANNEXURE	A2 THE TRUE DATED 08/ THE PETIT	COPY 12/20 IONER	OF THE 14 ISSUED .	COMMUNICATION NO.A4-378/04 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
ANNEXURE	A3 THE TRUE 23/04/201 INFORMATI	COPY 5 AND ON AC	OF THE ESTIMATE T FROM THE	REPLY NO. HC/GL/2005 DATED RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	A4 THE CERTI IN WP(C)N	FIED O.100	COPY OF TH 28/2017 OF	E JUDGMENT DATED 08/06/2017 THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE	A5 THE TRUE PAGE OF NOTICE BY	COPY THE THE	OF THE PO JUDGMENT RESPONDENT	STAL RECEIPT AND THE FIRST EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF S.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶28

===================== Contempt of Court Case No. 1541 of 2017 in W.P(C) No.10028 of 2017

¶29

=============================== Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The above writ petition has been filed alleging contempt on the respondents. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.10028 of 2017 specifically did not fix a time frame, especially since it was opined that the removal of encroachers has to be after due procedure of law, which would take time. It is also pertinent to note that none of these encroachers were impleaded in the writ petition. Despite that this Court directed expeditious finalisation of the proceedings after issuance of notice to the encroachers. The judgment itself was passed on 08.06.2017. In such

¶32

COC.No.1541/2017

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

circumstance, this Court does not find any deliberate contempt.

¶35

The contempt case hence would stand closed.

¶36

SB/14/09/2017

¶37

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

// true copy //

¶39

P.A to Judge

R.Santhosh Kumar v. Smt.Mithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Santhosh Kumar v. Smt.Mithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R.Narayana Das Vs the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram

Sumathi Vs the District Employment Officer

Royson Joseph Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance

Father Manual Road Residents Association Vs Anuja.a.S

George Mathew Vs Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda

Radha Vs the Land Tribunal